Zeagle

A big Thank you to ED for all the hard work. Keep up the good work guys! Coming from a 3d and programming background, I can say that I am in awe every time I fire up an aircraft in DCS. ED has really done something special. And I, for one, appreciate it.

+1 for upgrading the FC3 and SU-25T

You might want to explain this statement to myself and many other (notably military) pilots who fly DCS. I don't think "gaming", that is, playing to win a game, is what motivates the programmers to spend countless thankless hours developing something like DCS. As for the "gamers", I think most DCS pilots are real world pilots or at least want-to-be pilots. And I think most of us enjoy simulating a real world aviation experience. So I disagree with your statement. And, if you want to see the gamer mentality in action, just look at some of the space sims. The "pay-to-win" thing and such doesn't work out too well. Gamers don't appreciate the finer points. They just want to see a score.

The A-8 can carry the MK108. Against bombers it will be awesome. The D-9 was designed to be more of an air superiority fighter. The A-8 was more of a bomber interceptor. Also I think the A-8 is better on fuel usage than the D-9. The big radial can take more punishment than the Dora's liquid cooled engine as well.

Comparing the A-5, A-8, and D-9 to each other is ridiculous. They are different birds designed for different purposes. The A-8 can carry a lot more weaponry than the A-5. And it is more heavily armored. It is NOT slow. It is an interceptor, designed to counter the bombing threat of the time. The F-8 is the fighter-bomber (multirole) variant.

ATC clears aircraft for the procedure with a specification of where to break and direction of traffic pattern. It could be right or left depending. The break may be at mid-field. But it may be over the numbers or elsewhere in order to separate traffic. This is also an approach which is safer for some aircraft with bad glide ratios. And in the US, it's an FAA procedure that can be requested (AIM 5-4 I think). I have flown the procedure as a flight of two civilian aircraft. It's a safe way to split up and land. Basically it's an upwind entry into the pattern. The whole idea of the overhead is to bring in a flight together hauling ass (military birds have waivers for speed) and then split them up over the field within sight of each other and within the base air defense protection. Otherwise you would have guys strung out for miles at slow speed just begging to be shot down by a bandit or more likely small arms or manpads. Also, it makes it easier to recover several flights of aircraft as they are not all trying to sequence themselves 50 miles out. I believe this procedure was developed during WWII. Then it was common for the enemy to follow you home. This how many 262's as well as allied planes were killed or nearly killed. Now it's used for safety and to maintain skills for carrier landings.

Navigation with the map is natural for me because I trained to fly in the 1980's. The air commander put the strike package into a holding pattern between Gori and Tblisisi. This required visual identification of landmarks to do for the Su-25! Very realistic. As for me, I prefer air to ground. Mostly I fly The 109, 190, and FA-18. But the Su-25 is a great aircraft for this kind of mission. I was setting up for a second pass at the convoy when the F-14 showed up and forced us to bug out. When the mission ended, I was RTB with very little fuel and one engine shut down as a precaution. Keep up the good work Satarosa. I look forward to the next mission!

I flew my Su-25 into battle, fired at the enemy (I don't think I hit anything) and lived to fly another day. It was an excellent mission!

Creature is correct. I was involved in military aviation for 25 years. Not once ever did I hear the F-16 referred to as Fighting Falcon. Pilots and GCA alike referred to them as F-16 or Viper. And I had a friend who was a DFC recipient and flew them. It's the Viper. When the bird was new, the community wanted to call it Viper after the Battlestar Galactica viper. The brass didn't like that idea and came up with a PC name of their own. In the beginning the Viper moniker was a nickname. It became ubiquitous over time. It's like the Hawg. The brass would never go with Hog or Hawg or Warthog. The only people I have ever heard call it a Fighting Falcon were modelers, TV personnel, and some authors...and of course Gilman Louie

My idea of a squad is kind of like ENO's.. fly, have fun, don't be a !@#$. Fly in a realistic manner (no bomb and bail stuff). And just enjoy winging with your buds. Half the fun of a mission is flying out and flying back checking for damage, etc with the highly probable emergency landing to follow. I like to design missions. A week is about right for a two hour type scenario. It is very time consuming to build a scenario.

I can back up what Deano and Mower said. It was never called Fighting Falcon operationally. It's the Viper.

That image is of the FANG's out of Jacksonville which provided NORAD interception. But we shouldn't leave out the world famous 93rd FS MAKOS out of homestead.

Put me down for an Su-25T if you have one. Otherwise, any Su-25. "Zeagle"

Dude one of the most fun things to do in a simulator is fly in weather. Going out, doing the mission, and returning to an instrument landings is what I like. Night missions too. I am also amazed at others who complain on many public servers about night or weather. And I respectfully disagree with one of the above posts. It has been my experience that most DCS planes are weather capable. Even the Su-25T has some really good IFR and low vis attack capability. A real world weather option would be Awesome! +1 And another thing, static weather is not an option right now. Even if you delete outside views, just changing slots will delete the weather (reported bug). So dynamic is all we have. I have managed to get some relatively decent clouds with dynamic. But it's hit or miss and a pain to do. I would really prefer a real word weather option for the server.

You guys are welcome to fly on my server anytime. I set it up to run mostly cold starts. But It is changing. I have a training scenario that runs for 48+ hours with pretty much continuous awacs and refueling. Right now the A2A stuff is PvP. But I am going to add in some AI flights as well. If you want to learn your plane, it's a good scenario. Also you can get on and run night missions without people whining about it. Weather is dynamic right now. No screwy scripts. I may write my own if needed or even include some others in the future. Anyway it's a simple setup. But all are welcome. Just don't blow up friendly stuff on purpose.

Hang in there Wags....

Speed brakes allow you to run a higher throttle setting on approach. That way, if you have to do a go-around, you can retract the brakes and have more acceleration available quicker from the higher throttle setting. Most fast jets approach with brakes out as normal procedure.

Sunlight makes reading aircraft displays, especially lit displays, difficult. They are supposed to be "sunlight readable". But I can tell you from experience that in bright sun you cannot always read lighted displays. So I do not think it's a bug. As for the reflections off the glass, I think they are very realistic and well done.

I agree 100% with Zhukov on all the points he makes. Also try not to use too much steering until you slow way down. Otherwise you will blow a tire

Well if you can figure it out let me know. For now I am relegated to flying something with a pod or getting a buddy to lase.

That really sucks because I finally got some decent weather via static weather settings. Now just changing slots clears out the clouds. If I go to dynamic weather, the problem apparently goes away. But it's next to impossible to get decent clouds via dynamic.

On my server, I have a scenario using static weather (summer clouds and wind). When I change to external view (F2) to view other aircraft and then back inside, I get no clouds at all. This also happens when switching aircraft slots. I have tried ED repair command on both the client and server. No luck. Disabling external view in the mission seems to be the work-around. EVGA GTX 1070ti 8GB 32 GB DDR3 See attached images and track NAVWEP_01-20190430-113221.trk

I always do a cold start and no problems on the chute. Try the "repair" option. I don't know what got messed up, but "repair" fixes things sometimes.

I don't want or need "balance". I am in DCS for the simulation experience. If I have a challenge to overcome, then I adapt to meet it. I personally do not like to see historically friendly aircraft fighting each other unless it's a training type scenario. But that is just me.

Yeti does this work with the latest open beta?